If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

He can probably still be an effective #1 but I was never very comfortable with him being on a run first team like the Titans for anything over maybe $5M a year for 2 years.

JT Jag, per last cap year rules a player's deal can only escalate 20% from year to year in its total value, which includes base salary and any bonuses. So year 3 can't be too different. Nevertheless, he'll probably be cuttable cap wise after just this season anyway.

Comment

He can probably still be an effective #1 but I was never very comfortable with him being on a run first team like the Titans for anything over maybe $5M a year for 2 years.

JT Jag, per last cap year rules a player's deal can only escalate 20% from year to year in its total value, which includes base salary and any bonuses. So year 3 can't be too different. Nevertheless, he'll probably be cuttable cap wise after just this season anyway.

I don't see Holt as "iffy" at all. That team was so screwed up the last few years- no one could get anything going consistently.

Team him up with Maclin and they've got a real nice WR corps IMO w/ Northcutt in the slot.

The question for me now is whether we're going to see last year's Garrard or the Garrard of '07.

Comment

I don't see Holt as "iffy" at all. That team was so screwed up the last few years- no one could get anything going consistently.

Team him up with Maclin and they've got a real nice WR corps IMO w/ Northcutt in the slot.

The question for me now is whether we're going to see last year's Garrard or the Garrard of '07.

Well not really "iffy" I guess but think of it this way, if he struggles to make much on an impact, it wouldn't be that big of a surprise, would it? And the Jags said they're apparently not signing those types of FA's after last offseason.

BTW someone mentioned on another forum the deal has no signing bonus, just a guaranteed 2009 base salary? In that case he can be cut freely next offseason if need be. 2010 and 2011 is fluff money. So it's not quite like the Porter signing and is fairly low risk.

Comment

Not exactly sure why he got a three-year deal but at least the Jaguars are still making an attempt to get good wide receivers. I agree they overpaid and his contract is too long but you can't fault them for trying to get better. Holt is still a good wide receiver.

Comment

Not exactly sure why he got a three-year deal but at least the Jaguars are still making an attempt to get good wide receivers. I agree they overpaid and his contract is too long but you can't fault them for trying to get better. Holt is still a good wide receiver.

The poster above explained it. There's no signing bonus so if he's cut it won't hurt their cap. They have him under contract for three years, yes, but if he shows decline they'll simply cut him with no detriment.